If Ford is lying to smear Kavanaugh, why involve Mark Judge in the story--someone who’d surely also deny it, making it two men’s word against hers? If she’s lying to smear Kavanaugh and counting on it being too late to disprove, then why leave out rape in the story? Ford’s husband says he learned about it when they were married (early 2000s). Their shrink has notes describing the attack from four years ago.
Same questions for the second accuser, Deborah Ramirez. If Ramirez is pushing a bald lie, then why not tell a “he held me down and groped me” story that closely parallels Ford’s? That would be more believable, and also bolster Ford’s claim. That’s the obvious play if she is a lying conspirator. Instead she offers a very different account that isn’t corroborated.
Next we have Kavanaugh’s roommate, James Roche, chiming in. If he’s a liar with an agenda, why not say he witnessed or remembered the Ramirez incident? Instead he merely vouches for her honesty and Kavanaugh’s circle’s proclivities.
Like the accusers' stories, the letter of support is burdened with the inconvenience of truth.
We have yet to hear what the third accuser, Avenatti’s new client, has to say.
It's true, I’m only an outsider looking in, but (You) have to be a true fucking partisan to assume they’re all liars and the allegations are outside the realm of possibility for blackout drunk frat-boy Kavanaugh.
You are the most cancerious posters on Jow Forums, please look to your own political situation as I can assure you your country is on fire; and I hope you are too for making this horrendous leaf post...$age in all fields
Jonathan Adams
LOL, you are so fucking weak. You clowns swallow the dumbest conspiracies, but can't evaluate the information in front of you without bias, or unfounded accusations of someone else's bias.
Republicans need you like this, plus Trump loves you unthinking.
>We have yet to hear what the third accuser, Avenatti’s new client, has to say. get gassed, maplefaggot >in all fields
Leo Richardson
Yankee bro is right, senpai. Patrick Brown. Google the name. Read about it. This isn't the first time this shit's gone down. And I get the feeling it won't be the last. The man's life/career is being ruined for political reasons through what is no doubt baseless accusations. How is this okay?
Jayden Ortiz
Because the ENTIRE narrative is based off a few sentences in mark judges' book. >be democrats >need dirt on virgin ubermensch legal eagle >after digging for 2 yeara find NOTHING >start searching for unprovable narratives >send army of minions to search social media and find classmate who is a know associates (Judge) >read his autobiography and start developing elaborate fan fic around sections that might seem 'unwrittenbut plausible' >search social for never trumper cunts who kav may havecrossed paths within 1982 >make said cunts bigmoney offer to go public with baseless,30 yo accusations >be so fucking stupid you think people will buy it >senior senators realize its ridiculous and shelve the idea...until they were out of time/choices. >run with the WORST ideas in democratic party history >thru ineptitude and bad strategy... ensure the next 100 years of CONSERVATIVE courts
>Next we have Kavanaugh’s roommate, James Roche, chiming in. If he’s a liar with an agenda, why not say he witnessed or remembered the Ramirez incident? The dude literally said that Kavanaugh got drunk sometimes, so he's capable of gang rape.
Honest question, how fucking stupid are you?
Samuel Martin
Can I get a quick rundown? How fucked you think Kavanaugh is based on what happened to Patrick Brown?
Charles Sanchez
Serious reply: the issue is the burden of proof. In criminal cases, the burden is always on the accuser. As this is not a criminal case, perhaps one might argue - as many have - that in face Kav bears the burden of proof in this case, because he aspires to a prestigious office. I think this is difficult to maintain, because it opens the doors for unending unsubstantiated accusations - and accusations alone do great damage in "the court of public opinion". Accusations alone, without any corroboration, are why we are where we are.
In my mind, the number of accusations is irrelevant. To believe it's relevant is to believe that some number of falsehoods could in principle count as truth. What matters is whether any one of these accusations has any evidence behind them, beyond the accuser's words. Thus far these is a very surprising lack of evidence.
If the only allegations against Kav are unsubstantiated and without evidence - if there are *no good reasons* to believe these women other than "omg believe women" - then Kav should be confirmed ASAP.
>As this is not a criminal case, perhaps one might argue - as many have - that in face Kav bears the burden of proof in this case and many people are retards.
Dominic Taylor
This is the correct answer. Anything else is just political shilling.
William Jones
You're a fucking retarded faggot and we are all waiting for some proof any of these claims happened. And I mean real proof not some he said she said bullshit. Too bad they won't be able to produce any proof ever. Enjoy paying 40 dollars for a loan of bread you giant peter puffing homo
Colton White
>Trump loves you unthinking. We're not the ones asking people to believe things without proof or substantiation. I'm critical of every claim brought to me and the motives of those that bring them.
>inconvenience of truth You don't give a shit about truth.
>Next we have Kavanaugh’s roommate, James Roche, chiming in. If he’s a liar with an agenda, why not say he witnessed or remembered the Ramirez incident? Because he understands that there are repercussions for lying. So all he does is vouch for one person and dismiss himself from answering any further questions. He admits to knowing Kavanaugh for all of a few days. How is that enough time to really make an assessment of a persons character anyways?
>If she’s lying to smear Kavanaugh Isn't that obvious from the timing? And the HUGE delay between events claimed and now? >why leave out rape in the story? Because that's a WAY WAY more severe accusation and that accusation both involves physical evidence and an extremely severe act that if not acted upon also damages the claimed severity of the act. It's a gambit wherein you can't make too unbelievable of a claim or one that would be too easy to disprove. >(You) have to be a true fucking partisan to assume they’re all liars I don't have to assume anything given that no proof is provided. And when someone offers a positive claim, they are the ones that have to provide proof. The accused doesn't have to prove a negative, because there's no way to do that anyways.
>That’s the obvious play if she is a lying conspirator. Maybe too obvious? Maybe they didn't coordinate at all? Maybe she was approached or volunteered hastily? Keep in mind that Feinstein SAT ON Ford's letter for 2 months.
Christian Jones
Because this isn't a trial. It's a testimony of their version story. If she wishes to make a police report and claim there were witnesses , the local police precinct is willing to look into it, good luck with that.
Sebastian Reyes
Shes crazy. This memory came out in a bullshit hypnotherapy session.
Logan Miller
Because it delays shit. Why in good conscience let a (((rapist))) be a federal judge?? Not a peep!
Josiah Gray
The part that kills me on this story is that the media keep trying to frame this as a 'boys will be boys" defense. They imply he already admitted guilt and is going for a "we were just highschool kids" defense to excuse his actions. By keeping the "boys being boys' and fratboy culture going on cablenews there has to be implied guilt. It's pretty fucking low even by modern low standards.
>Kavanaugh: "Nothing happened" >Reporter: "So you are saying you were just young kids and you attacker her?" >Kavanaugh: "No, literally nothing happened. There was no party, I never touched her" >Reporter: "So once again boys will be boys... Sad that they always fall back to this excuse to defend their sinister actions. The fratboy culture of toxic masculinity has to end"
Jayden Perry
Forgot pic. All the news sites are running similar articles.
The timing of the accusation and the fact he has already been vetted over and over is what makes it scream horseshit. These women only spoke up when he is about to be on the Supreme Court. It's entirely partisan sabotage and the disgusting media that tries to spin it otherwise can go to hell.
Evan Edwards
Sounds like a onions-boy cuck loser butthurt the cool kids didn't want to hang out with him.
Luke Clark
Journalists are going to act so scandalized when people start beating them into sobbing, bloody wrecks in the middle of restaurants.
Christian Hughes
CNN's "boys will be boys" article was the worst of them.
>I turned around. He was in his thirties, overweight, short blond hair, mustache, jeans and a T-shirt. He had a beer can in his hand and smelled like he'd been drinking. He grabbed my breast roughly, yanked my nipple, and said, "I was going to rape you -- (****) that sweet ass." I stood for some seconds -- dumbstruck, then scared. "I was going to drag you in that alley over there," he continued, pointing over my shoulder. "You're lucky there are too many people around." He stared at me another moment, then turned and walked away.
>My first instinct was to flee, so I turned around and walked briskly to my bus stop. My second instinct was shame. I looked for witnesses as I walked, but not to corroborate a police report. I was worried someone saw the humiliating thing that just happened to me. All I wanted was to get on the bus, get to work, and, as impossible as it seemed, to forget it happened. Calling the police never occurred to me. >Never occurred to me. >When I got to the temp job, I excused myself to the restroom and sobbed. A few minutes later, I pulled myself together and went back to work. >According to Donald Trump, if it had been a real attack, I would have called the police and filed a report. Getting on the bus and reporting for work somehow counts against me.
This faggot is basically saying it’s possible because Kavanaugh is a male with a penis
However the more I hear about Kavanaugh being a binge drinking degenerate the less I like him
Samuel Thomas
No evidence. Only witness testimony.
SAGE
Camden Martin
We could give a shit what you think. This man's going to fucking hate liberals when he finally gets comfirmed.
Connor Ortiz
>blackout drunk frat-boy Kavanaugh Please post your evidence that he is a blackout drunk frat-boy. I'll wait.
Brayden Lee
This.
This whole episode has shown had drawn to drama the left is. Especially uneducated college kids who spam Jow Forums with their lefty talking points.
They equate drinking at college to being able to committ sexual assault. They believe words (and a story with more holes that swiss chesse) as factual, actual evidence. They want the presumption of innocence eliminated. The "believe her" campaign requires the suspension of logic.
Could you imagine the sort of laws that would have been enacted if they had won in 2016? Good God.
Eli Bailey
Mark Judge is the perfect person to say was there. He wrote a book on blacking out. If you want to sew doubt, say Mark Judge was there and then enough doubt is there for roastie dem senators to keep the fuckery going closer to the midterms
Julian Perry
>the claims are ridiculous therefore they're true
Joseph Murphy
>You clowns swallow the dumbest conspiracies Like believing a 35 year old story of a boob grab with zero evidence?
Julian Sanchez
this leaf got btfo so hard jfc are you still alive?
Hunter Thompson
LOL, whenever it's a Dem under attack for something they did decades ago it's >he's a changed man, is there anyone among us who didn't do something stupid when they were teenagers?
Brody Richardson
Fuck off. You literally voted for costumes.
Lucas Long
Nah I vote because I trust her.
Lincoln Brooks
just kill yourself you massive faggot
Adam Ross
kys leaf
David Lopez
>he came home drunk sometimes and i liked this girl >therefore he raped her
David Nguyen
>He binged drank in high school and college in the 80’s. Oh the horror.
Grow up.
Eli Flores
democrats already won this battle thanks to chuck "the cuck" grassley.
with the hearing being on thursday, there will not be enough time to get Kavanaugh seated on the Supreme Court before they go back in session on October 1st. This will re-establish the concept of "only 8 active scotus judges". Then the left will have their new war cry: hold the nomination until the next president decides in 2020, same way it was for muh Merrick Garland.
Now all they need is a reason to not hold these hearings. This will be solved with "civil disobedience" performs by their useful idiots in the down ranks. They will pay protestors to shit up the Thursday hearing so much that it has to be "cancelled due to the dangerous environment"
From there, they may just go full ghost like Avenatti already has on Twitter
But they already got their next narrative thanks to chuck the cuck being a fucking pussy. Why do you think Ford's (((lawyers))) chose Thursday? Just at random?
Robert Brooks
Ford also named the other two witnesses to the alleged incident. Both of them have denied any recollection of the party in question and say they never heard of the alleged incident and do not believe the alleged incident happened. It's not he-said-she-said, it's four people against one.
In response the testimony of all four alleged witnesses, Ford has claimed actually there were six witnesses, but she refuses so far to name the two imaginary people.
The Ramirez story discredits itself. She herself said she is not sure it was Kavanaugh and every witness says they've never heard of it and did not witness the alleged streaking.
Avenatti is a clown. Honestly, him representing the anonymous third accuser is the nail in the coffin of all three's credibility. You have to be fucking partisan or a willful know-nothing to assume any of them are credible.
Note that they are not necessarily liars. False memories are a thing. All three have been coached by lawyers with a personal animus towards Trump. They may well be victims, just not the kind of victim they think they are.
